Talk:Linda Sarsour/Archive 15

Criticism by Women's March founder

 * The Hill: Women's March founder calls for group's leadership to step down: Shook specifically called out Linda Sarsour, Tamika Mallory, Bob Bland and Carmen Perez of Women's March, Inc., for allowing "anti-Semitism, anti- LBGTQIA sentiment and hateful, racist rhetoric" to become a part of the platform.
 * CNN: Founder of the Women's March calls for co-chairs to step down: Shook's critique comes following longstanding criticism of the group's association with Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the black nationalist group Nation of Islam, who has made numerous anti-Semitic and homophobic comments. Mallory and Perez have both posted photos on Instagram of themselves with Farrakhan praising the National of Islam leader, and Sarsour spoke at the Justice or Else rally headlined by Farrakhan in 2015. .E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Per these - (and a number of others) - this is also connected to the "dual loyalty" talk and Farrakhan.Icewhiz (talk) 11:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * How's this as a better lede given consensus that these accusations ought to be included: Sarsour was co-chair of the 2017 Women's March and of the 2017 Day Without a Woman strike and protest. She has worked with Black Lives Matter and Jewish Voice for Peace. Some mainstream Jewish organizations have accused Sarsour of anti-semitism due to her support for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel, her association with Louis Farrakhan, and her accusation that Jewish-Americans have a "dual loyalty" to Israel. And we'll cite it with the two reliable sources from the Hill and CNN listed above. Thoughts? ModerateMike729 (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Endorse. I think that ModerateMike's is an NPOV and appropriate statement. Certainly, the lede we now have is misleading and out-of-date.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Way out of proportion for the lead section. Looking at the excerpts here, this involves all the 2017 Women's March leadership, not just Sarsour. A brief mention in the relevant section of Sarsour's bio would be appropriate. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It mainly involves Sarsour and Mallory, of which Sarsour is the more significant of the two. Icewhiz (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Based on which published, reliable sources? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Based on mainstream media coverage focused on Mallory and Sarsour, including coverage of  Alyssa Milano's withdrawal from the 2019 Women's March.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Glad you asked. Did the American Jewish Committee accuse the entire women's march leadership of using the anti-semitic "dual loyalty" canard, or did they specifically accuse Sarsour? See here. Did B'Nai Brith Canada ask the entire women's march not to speak at a Canadian event due to charges of anti-semitism, or just Sarsour? Let's see. ModerateMike729 (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * where do either of those two sources say anything about "Some mainstream Jewish organizations"? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * CIJA, Bnai Brith Canada...These are fairly prominent Jewish groups. We can discuss how to define them but they merit a mention clearly. Why do these Jewish groups not deserve to have their relevant criticisms mentioned? ModerateMike729 (talk) 13:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether they are "prominent" or "relevant" appears to be your own original research. Where do published, reliable sources include these groups with any "mainstream" ones that have criticized Sarsour regarding Farrakhan or "dual loyalty"? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It is patently false that all of these charges "involve all" the Women's March leadership. The "dual loyalty" charge is specific to a statement made by Sarsour, as is her support of BDS. And reliable sources discuss her support of Farrakhan both in the context of the women's march broadly, but also just as an individual (see here). While it's true that sources will accurately describe her as a women's march co-chair (after all, that's a major role of hers) these are specific charges of anti-semitism on Sarsour as an individual. The entire leadership of the women's march didn't say Jews have dual loyalty--Sarsour did. The entire women's march leadership hasn't taken an official stance endorsing BDS--Sarsour did. And everything cited here reflects that. In no way is the lede I wrote in violation of WP:PROPORTION, but rather it is an NPOV way to include the frequent criticisms that Sarsour receives from major Jewish-American groups which are currently glaringly absent. It's curious to me that some editors here are trying to keep the scope of criticisms of Sarsour only limited to BDS and only in the context of the women's march, rather than being encyclopedic and going off what the reliable sources say. Linda Sarsour makes headlines weekly for her affiliations, statements, and political positions that Jewish groups believe to be anti-semitic. The idea that this shouldn't feature prominently in the lead is beyond ridiculous. ModerateMike729 (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That article in The Forward is clearly marked "Opinion". Both opinion pieces and breaking-news reports are considered primary sources per WP:IRS. Describing criticism of living people, on the other hand, requires reliable, secondary sources – see WP:BLP. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Breaking news is PRIMARY. However, most items by WP:NEWSORGS are secondary - as is the non-breaking news reporting here. Opinion pieces are not primary if they analyze a situation, and we may use published WP:RSOPINION for attributed statements on BLPs. Icewhiz (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, that's the problem, isn't it? Why should we give any particular weight to Petra Marquardt-Bigman's attributed opinion as the author of that Forward op-ed? Is she a noted expert of some kind? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC) (edited 17:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC))
 * Marquardt-Bigman? PhD in contemporary history, notable analyst of contemporary antisemitism - however that is beside the point - as we have several reports by WP:NEWSORGs that are not opinions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * American universities gave out 55,000 doctorates in 2015 alone – 1,145 of those were for history. There must be tens of thousands of people in the U.S. with a Ph.D. in history. You could assemble a dozen of them to support any POV you wished. Doesn't help here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC) (edited)
 * As the English Wikipedia has some 5,754,618 articles, and estimating that the professional lifespan of a 25 year old phD is some 45 years (and assuming a normal rate of growth over the past 45 years for past PhDs) - that would be some 25,000 history PhDs commenting on 5,754,618 articles - or one PhD per each 230 articles - and this for published opinions one must note. Seems the history PhD population is still fairly sparse in relation to Wikipedia mainspace size.Icewhiz (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You're assuming an even distribution of opinions over those 5-million-plus articles (which are about more than just history, so your samples are incorrectly matched). However, some controversial topics inspire much more comment than others, as this article proves. Still doesn't help assess the relevance of this one person's opinion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Per WP:PROPORTION, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. This is a perfect illustration of the latter. The criticism of Sarsour's stance on Israel and BDS (or "insistence on Palestinian rights") that we currently mention is supported by multiple reliable secondary sources spanning several months, e.g. Haaretz, JTA, and Politico. By contrast, the "dual loyalty" controversy is still in the breaking-news phase. The Farrakhan controversy has begun to receive some analytical secondary coverage, but it's (a) still pretty recent and (b) involves Mallory as much as or more than Sarsour. Putting info like this in the lead section without a corresponding explanation in the body text is definitely a violation of WP:WEIGHT. Also, the proposed text appears to eliminate the phrase from the lead – what's the rationale for such an omission? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Endorse some mention of the foregoing but with less emphasis at this time than is reflected in this draft. If it receives more coverage then it can receive more emphasis. This precise language is, however, excessive weight. Coretheapple (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, we should generally be careful if a BLP subject disagrees with a particular assessment. Of course, if an overwhelming majority of sources agrees that a BLP subject is lying, we don't give any weight to the BLP subject. In this case, Sarsour's essay ("A Letter on Loyalty, Agency, Unity and the Farrakhan Controversy") has been widely cited in news sources today (not really breaking news), and we must be careful about our sources at the moment. The essay again affirms Sarsour's support for BDS, which belongs to the lead, and is already in the lead. However, the essay also obviously condemns Farrakhan, and directly contradicts the allegations of her being close to him, which are not supported by any recent evidence. Therefore, I oppose the proposed version as POV. Needless to say, the "dual loyalty" stuff belongs to the lead by any standard of RS, as it's uncontested. w umbolo   ^^^  17:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Another opinion piece from the Tablet: No, Linda Sarsour Did Not Accuse Jews Of Dual Loyalty. But The Right Wants You To Think She Did. If this is to be mentioned at all, we should 1: tell what Sarsour herself say, then, 2: possibly, reflect both her critics and her defenders. (Personally, I think we can probably cut  out stage 2 all together), Huldra (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * An overview of the recent controversy in The Daily Beast places Mallory's attendance at Farrakhan's event at "the root of the controversy" and says that "Several prominent members of Women’s March Inc., including board members Perez, Sarsour, and Bland" offered defenses of Mallory. It goes on to mention Milano's boycott of the 2019 Women's March "if it was led by Mallory or Sarsour, due to their past affiliation with Farrakhan and their reluctance to denounce Farrakhan’s frequent hateful rhetoric". Clearly some mention of this is warranted, but to single out the criticism of Sarsour, especially for inclusion in the lead section, without contextualizing it as a controversy involving several Women's March leaders would be highly misleading. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And here's a bit of recent analysis from Ben Sales of the JTA, stating that the Women's March "has come under renewed fire recently for co-chair Tamika Mallory’s associations with Louis Farrakhan" (focus again is on Mallory). It summing up the recent controversy, it states that "Sarsour has been a polarizing figure to American Jews. Some on the right and center point to her anti-Zionist activism [...] But some progressive Jews have worked with Sarsour and defended her from charges of anti-Semitism. They point to her fundraising for the funerals of victims of the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, as well as her raising funds on behalf of a vandalized Jewish cemetery." Sales mentions the recent Tweeted criticism aimed at Sarsour as well as Tuesday's statement apologizing to Jewish members of the Women's March (that's the breaking-news part). I'd say that this is an important additon to the Jewish responses to Sarsour that we already have in the article, but doesn't really change the overall picture, i.e. skepticism of Sarsour on the center-right part of the spectrum, support on the left. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And now this from The Washington Post: "Regional chapters, allies and some of the movement’s most visible supporters have turned their backs on the national group, saying they won’t rejoin until the four women at the helm denounce and cut ties with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan" [emphasis added]. It likewise mentions Shook, Milano, and Sarsour's statement on anti-Semitism, saying "Mallory and Sarsour have condemned anti-Semitism, homophobia and other forms of hatred but have not renounced Farrakhan himself". Singling out Sarsour's role here would once again be WP:UNDUE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Plenty of sources cover Sarsour's remarks standalone - place her photo front and center. However, would you be arguing for removal of the following from the lede and article? "Sarsour and her Women's March co-chairs were included in Time magazine's "100 Most Influential People" in 2017"? That was a group award. We don't go around keeping in the good stuff with it is group related, and then arguing the bad stuff should go out when it is group related. The question should be whether there has been enough coverage of Sarsour's role in the antisemitism crisis - and there more certainly has been. Icewhiz (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that plenty of polemic sources whose primary interest is in demonizing Sarsour continue to sieze upon any criticism of her, no matter how marginal. We are not concerned with such sources, but with reliable, mainstream ones offering competent journalistic analysis. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that the part about Sarsour's association with Farrakhan doesn't belong in the lead (at least in the proposed form). Most of the criticism regarding Farrakhan has been directed at the Women's March organizers in general, not Sarsour specifically. As she reiterated 2 days ago, she HAS denounced Farrakhan's anti-Semitism (apparently as far back as 2017), but no one seems to care. As she explained, she hasn't been more vocal in her condemnation of Farrakhan because she thinks it's absurd and racist that people are focusing on Farrakhan rather than the violent white nationalists who are actually attacking and killing Jewish people. But of course no one is going to write a story about Sarsour actually denouncing Farrakhan, as the only people who seem to want to write about Sarsour's relationship with Farrakhan are people attacking her. I don't think it would be fair (or accurate?) to say that mainstream Jewish organizations have accused Sarsour of anti-semitism due to her association with Farrakhan, unless we also mentioned that Sarsour has denounced Farrakhan's statements (at least twice now). Kaldari (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * rather than the violent white nationalists who are actually attacking and killing Jewish people That's a lie simply not the case and she does not think that (you violated BLP). Where's Farrakhan from? NYC. Where's Sarsour from? NYC. Read this excerpt from The New York Times: If anti-Semitism bypasses consideration as a serious problem in New York, it is to some extent because it refuses to conform to an easy narrative with a single ideological enemy. During the past 22 months, not one person caught or identified as the aggressor in an anti-Semitic hate crime has been associated with a far right-wing group, Mark Molinari, commanding officer of the police department’s Hate Crimes Task Force, told me.  w umbolo   ^^^  06:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment struck in favor of simply linking to an article in Haaretz which reaches the same conclusion that I reached: "Linda Sarsour Apologizes to Woman's March Jewish Members for Slow Response to anti-Semitism". w umbolo   ^^^  10:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * did you actually read the essay by Sarsour that you linked to earlier? . Kindly retract your unfounded accusations of lying etc. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wumbolo please strike your comments - that sort of talk is not appropriate for WP talk pages.  Gandydancer (talk) 03:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * destroy us all (emphasis mine) Sarsour is not a Jew, so she is not referring to Jews here. w umbolo   ^^^  07:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So people are only capable of identifying with members of their own ethnicity? Your claim to know what Sarsour is thinking, and selective quoting of a Times article on hate crimes, are both bizarre and irrelevant. Sarsour's statement clearly supports Kaldari's comments. Please strike your accusation that they "violated BLP". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't. w umbolo   ^^^  19:20, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * please see your user talk page. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I might be late to the party here, but I'd like to say that while I support the inclusion in the body here, I really don't think it belongs in the lede.--Calthinus (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Sangdeboeuf you reverted my edit removing the statement that the subject has "won praise" from liberals- a highly questionable claim - are you also prepared to include the opinions of those from whom she has not won praise and who have been published in WP:RS, per WP:NPOV? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What part of NPOV do you mean? Remember that WP:FALSEBALANCE is also part of NPOV. And that WP:BLP and WP:NOT also apply here. For praise from liberal activists and politicians, see this source. As for her detractors, the lead section directly referenced those covered by reliable, secondary sources until quite recently, when that content was removed by another user. Perhaps you meant to ping them instead? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I pinged the correct user, as you're the one who reverted my edit (which is not inherently wrong, but in this instance I think you're off). Just to address the two policy arguments you made:


 * WP:BLP is not a blanket policy that requires omitting controversial or potentially negative information; it only requires that it be supported by an independent WP:RS. WP:PUBLICFIGURE also applies and says in the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.
 * Conflating WP:NPOV with WP:FALSEBALANCE is a misrepresentation of what's going on here because criticisms against her have been published in reliable sources, like in the New York Times opinion column, the Washington Post, and Newsweek.
 * On your last point, It's unfortunate that that other editor decided to make such a revert, and I would hope that per WP:MOSLEAD which states that prominent controversies be included in the lead, you would agree with me in calling for it to be reinserted. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You are correct that prominent controversies should be mentioned in the lead. If anyone wants to restore that part, by all means be bold and do so. However, BLP does not require just independent sources for controversial or negative information (notice that phrase "well-documented"). WP:BLP specifically says that Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone (emphasis added). Opinion columns, on the other hand, are primary sources for the author's opinion, and generally not reliable for factual statements. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Your point about the difference between WP:PRIMARY and secondary is a fair one. However, the Newsweek article was not in the editorial section. Here are a couple of other examples of independent pieces reporting on criticisms against her.


 * A Muslim-American Activist’s Speech Raises Ire Even Before It’s Delivered, New York Times
 * Anger over Farrakhan ties prompts calls for Women’s March leaders to resign, Washington Post — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor19920 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It would seem that our praise analysis is out of date in regards tk later developments and criticism.Icewhiz (talk) 05:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The same could be said about the later criticism. Her apology will likely earn much praise in the near future. What I'm trying to say, is that I'm against removing "outdated" reception, in favor of citing retrospective analysis (as recommended by WP:PRIMARYNEWS).  w umbolo   ^^^  11:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not "our" analysis. It's Sales'/JTA's analysis. Whether it's in proportion to the overall coverage of Sarsour in reliable, secondary sources is another issue. However, I think the "champion of change" award suggests that it's relevant, for starters. Also significantly, Sales himself does not backtrack on the "praise by liberals" idea; instead, he says . —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I will note that continuing coverage of Shook's critique - after the initial burst - has focused on Sarsour specifically. e.g. this.   Icewhiz (talk) 09:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you'd read beyond the headline, you'd see that the article actually leads off with a description of "ties between Tamika Mallory, a Women’s March co-chair" and Farrakhan, then introduces Sarsour as "[a]nother co-chair of the Women’s March". The next paragraph is about Shook's statements regarding "Mallory and Sarsour, along with their co-chairs Carmen Perez and Bob Bland". Further down, Sarsour's response to Shook is described, but there's nothing about Sarsour's supposed ties to Farrakhan. The article is in fact mainly a piece of human-interest reporting about Shook herself. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Struck comments from confirmed sockpuppet /. See. —  Newslinger  talk   13:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment: Teresa Shook criticism
Should any or all of the following statements appear in the article under ?

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:34, 15 December 2018 (UTC) (updated 02:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC))


 * No to A and B, drastically condense C: recentism and undue weight are my main concerns here. We already summarize the controversy under, saying that "Sarsour and her co-chair Tamika Mallory were the focus of a controversy over their perceived refusal to distance themselves from the Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, whose rhetoric has been deemed antisemitic and homophobic by the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti Defamation League". The first two statements don't add anything meaningful to this picture, and focus on the Women's March leadership as a whole, not Sarsour specifically. These statements belong at the 2019 Women's March article if anywhere. The third statement is apparently arbitrarily selected from several quotes also published in the same source. There's no indication how this specific statement is relevant to the controversy or to Sarsour's bio in general. I think we should mention the apology itself, but wait for more retrospective analysis, evaluation, and synthesis to be published in reliable, secondary sources before we expand this section with specific quotes. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Should any of these statements receive further coverage that evaluates them in relation to the upcoming 2019 Women's March, then they might be appropriate to include. Given the current sources available, however, I believe it's too soon to give this material the emphasis it currently has. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So you're arguing that we should keep the placating apology and remove any mention of the actual controversy that prompted it? This is nonsensical and just comes off as an attempt at whitewashing. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Where did I say we should remove "any mention" of the controversy? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Despite several claims here that the material is "central" to Sarsour's bio, or that Sarsour herself is central to the drama, the sources offering the most evaluation and synthesis, such as JTA, WaPo, and The Daily Beast, present very little that ties Sarsour personally to the recent controversy with Teresa Shook, as I described above under . And the lastest overview from the Times presents a similar picture. Sarsour is mentioned twice in giving background information, neither time in relation to any controversy. Shook's call for the Women's March leadership to step down is mentioned specifically in relation to Mallory and Perez, not to Sarsour. I'm not seeing the unambiguous support for giving this incident so much weight in Sarsour's bio. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

She's one of the main subjects of the article and is clearly a central character in what appears to be a significant controversy with national coverage—she also appears to be the most notable of the four co-chairs, just based on the sources. And the pieces I linked do not say it was only Mallory's association with Farrakhan—her own attendance at a Farrakhan event and the failure of her and her colleagues to "denounce" Farrakhan is pointed to as well. This is simply my assessment, and you are free to disagree, but why don't we see how the discussion plays out. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * A+B+C (with some corrections - I will note that the proposer here objects to the text, and it is not quite clear where these versions were taken from). Sarsour is mainly known for women's march, and the repudition of Saraour and her co-leaders by the founder is significant and has received very wide coverage by top tier outlets (we could perhaps beef up some of the refs above).Icewhiz (talk) 08:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I share Icewhiz's above curiosity as to where this text comes from. w umbolo   ^^^  12:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's from the article, obviously; see the current revision. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * A+B+C Not only is this information relevant to the subject's biography, it is central. Her involvement in the Women's March of 2017 is already noted in the lead, and the 2019 March should probably be documented in the lead in some form as well. We have a plethora of secondary sources like this extensive piece from Tablet, this one from the WaPo, and this one from CNN documenting this issue. Calling the content WP:UNDUE, which states Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public, is inconsistent with the what has been reported in WP:RS. As an aside, I would note that it not necessarily efficient to use the RfC process to litigate multiple issues in this article at once, and I would hope that we could resolve further disagreements through discussion and assessing the arguments already made on this talk page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether something has been "documented" in reliable sources does not make it encyclopedic; Wikipedia is not a news site. Where is the secondary-source analysis, evaluation, and synthesis indicating that this info is "central" to the subject's bio? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The answer to your question is provided in the sources linked. I see no justification for calling this content "unencyclopedic," nor does it constitute original or routine reporting. The relevant policy is WP:DUE as you noted, and the actual text of that policy clearly not only supports but requires inclusion of this content. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Where does it say that we are "required" to include any particular information? I don't see anything in the linked sources suggesting that these events are central to Sarsour's bio at all. Shook called for all four of the Women's March leaders to step down, for one thing. Is this central to all of their bios? Based on whose analysis? According to WP:PROPORTION, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is just such a situation, where there have been several instances of people criticizing Sarsour (and others) for supposedly enabling anti-Semitism etc., but none of the sources I've seen suggest that these incidents are particularly relevant to each other or to Sarsour personally. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Referring to the pieces linked as "routine reporting" is a mischaracterization. We are required to follow the fundamental principle of WP:NPOV which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic, not omitting information about the subject you find distasteful. I'm unclear on what you mean by calling the matter "isolated" or "insignificant"; that would appear to be inconsistent with the level of reporting and coverage. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm unclear on how a handful of news reports constitute "significant" coverage, or how they prove the material is specifically relevant to Sarsour. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources explicitly mention Sarsour as belonging to the leadership of the Women's March in 2019, her actions as contributing to the controversy, and her being a target of Shook's comments. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As were the three other Women's March leaders. Where does it say that Sarsour was personally and significantly involved in the "controversy" or that Shook's comments or those of "regional chapters, allies and some of the movement’s most visible supporters" were directed at Sarsour personally? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Try reading the source instead of WP:BADGERING me to explain it to you. Teresa Shook, a lawyer and educator who founded the Women's March movement, accused the group's current co-chairs -- Bob Bland, Tamika Mallory, Linda Sarsour and Carmen Perez -- of associating with bigoted outside groups and tarnishing the Women's March's initial goals in a post on her Facebook page Monday. is from CNN. Regional chapters, allies and some of the movement’s most visible supporters have turned their backs on the national group, saying they won’t rejoin until the four women at the helm denounce and cut ties with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. is from the WaPo. Your arguments about these sources being "routine reporting" and raising questions about "relevance" when Sarsour is one of the main subjects of these pieces are unpersuasive and unsupported by policy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That WaPo refers to the subjects of controversy collectively as "the four women at the helm" actually shows that Sarsour is not the main subject. Other secondary coverage suggests just the opposite: The Daily Beast places Mallory's attendance at Farrakhan's event at "the root of the controversy", while JTA attributes the controversy to "Tamika Mallory’s associations with Louis Farrakhan". The fact that Sarsour was also involved doesn't mean that Shook's comments and the actions of regional supporters etc. are particularly relevant to her biography. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:33, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, Sarsour's and Mallory's "failure" to denounce Farrakhan, as you put it, is already mentioned in the article, as I said. And how do the sources suggest that Sarsour is the most notable part of this controversy? —06:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No to all. This may or may not be relevant to an article about the march, but is largely irrelevant to a biography of Sarsour. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Then why is she prominently mentioned in each of these articles? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

No one said it should. You made a claim about recentism. The March piece from the Atlantic indicates this particular controversy—over Sarsour and her co-chairs' alleged ties to Louis Farrakhan—has been simmering for months. The pieces provided earlier in this thread, and cited in the article, are used to source Shook's November comments and the fallout with various chapters, which were directly related to that controversy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 09:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * A+B+C one of Sarsour's claim to fame is the March. Having this statement makes perfect sense and we should not whitewash the article anymore than we already do. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * A+C. B is vague; are there any sources expanding on the topic of sentence B? The quotes might well be important, but we'd want multiple sources discussing the issue to decide on the most relevant/cited ones. w umbolo   ^^^  09:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * B has context (and not just covered by WaPo - this dates back a bit) - R.I. Women’s March splits from national group, alleging anti-Semitism, providencejournal, May 2018, "Regional chapters of the Women’s March movement have increasingly criticized the national organization for what they see as its inadequate response to anti-Semitism. Last week, the Rhode Island chapter disaffiliated entirely, citing “National leadership’s reluctance to call out Antisemitism, and their defensiveness when asked to examine their own prejudices in this area.”, "The co-chairs’ embrace of Farrakhan and their use of Nation of Islam members for security resulted in the splintering of the movement as numerous state chapters disaffiliated with the national organization. "The Women’s March leaders have often dismissed their critics as right wing or driven by racism, but over the past two months their fiercest challengers have come from within their own shop—with women of color, and their own local organizers, often leading the pack. As of this article’s publication, numerous state chapters have broken off from the national organization—notably Houston, Washington, D.C., Alabama, Rhode Island, Florida, Portland, Illinois, Barcelona, Canada, and Women’s March GLOBAL.* ..... In a conference call with the state chapter organizers on Nov. 29, Sarsour punted the swirling controversies as nothing but a little scuttlebutt. “It just happens often with women, unfortunate gossip and rumors and it’s very hurtful to us as our families are watching these conversation online.”  .... Angie Beem ... president of the board for the Women’s March Washington State told Tablet that after this Jan. 3 anniversary march, the Washington state chapter will be dissolving. “The vice president of our chapter is Jewish,” Beem said. “She gave them that first opportunity to apologize and admit and say ‘we screwed up’ but they didn’t, so she was done.” After this year’s march, Beem said, “we are dissolving the organization.”  Icewhiz (talk) 10:00, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What does any of that have to do with Sarsour? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the fallout from the controversy over her involvement with the march, according to the articles. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Where does it say that? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No to all, WP:UNDUE given the current level of coverage relative to the scale of the womans' march and what we say about it currently. The proposed additions would make the section on the 2019 womans' march almost entirely about a very recent controversy sourced to a handful of sources that only mention Sarsour herself in passing, which isn't remotely proportionate.  Wait a few months, then come back and see if there's been significant secondary coverage on the topic. --Aquillion (talk) 04:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * A+B+C Of course it should be included, it's highly WP:DUE, though I agree B needs to be expanded on. This article is already whitewashed beyond belief. As for WP:RECENT, this is a result of the latest development of what's been a long-growing scandal surrounding anti-semitism allegations directed toward both Sarsour and the Women's March. I reject the idea that there's a recency bias when this stuff has been in the news for at least year in varying capacities. ModerateMike729 (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The subject is the remarks by Shook, Sarsour's apology, and the actions of "regional chapters, allies and some of the movement’s most visible supporters", which are all quite recent. Where does any published RS explicitly connect them to the "stuff" about Sarsour that's been in the news? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sangdeboeuf you opened this RfC, now let the discussion play out; stop challenging and WP:BADGERING every editor with whom you disagree. You don't WP:OWN this page.Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The discussion is not a poll. I am asking people to substantiate their claims with published sources, one of the core components of building a consensus. If you know of additional secondary sources that show the relevance of this material, why don't you provide them yourself and save us some time? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Multiple secondary sources have already been provided—and here's another one from the Atlantic in March 2018 demonstrating that this particular controversy with the subject (Sarsour) has in fact been percolating for some time. It's not your role to poke, prod, and disassemble the argument of every editor and demand that they show you a source; you seem perfectly capable of conducting your own research. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Any source from March of this year cannot, by definition, be a reliable source for something that happened in November of the same year. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Once again, the recent issue, and the topic of this RfC, is the remarks by Shook, Sarsour's apology, and the actions of "regional chapters", which no source published in March has anything to do with. Where do any published, reliable sources connect Shook's comments, etc. to any issue "simmering for months"? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Once again, don't repeatedly ask editors to restate what's already been explained. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 10:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I still don't see any explanation of how these specific events are particularly relevant to Sarsour. According to the sources, such as The Washington Post,The Daily Beast, JTA, and  The Hill, they involve the Women's March leadership as a whole. These sources either don't mention any earlier "simmering" controversy or attribute it elsewhere than to Sarsour herself. The Atlantic piece from March 2018 is also largely an opinion essay, which is a rather slender peg to hang any claims of lasting significance on. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Wrong—the March 2018 piece in The Atlantic, a WP:RS, is an online magazine article that contains both commentary and factual reporting, and it shows the flimsiness of your WP:RECENTISM argument for non-inclusion (furthermore, WP:RECENTISM typically describes an article-wide problem, not a section-specific one, especially one less than 7 sentences). This piece, along with the others cited, is precisely the type of source that WP:BLP articles require and that establish WP:WEIGHT. Your claims about "relevance" are, again, frivolous; each of the sources on this matter explicitly and specifically mentions Sarsour—yes, as well as the three other co-chairs, which, according to the sources, compose the Women's March's leadership. Shook's comments in A make direct reference to Sarsour. B describes the fallout from this controversy in which Sarsour was a central figure, as explained in the WaPo. C is a quote from a statement released by Sarsour on behalf of the Women's March. In determining relevance, we consult the sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The Atlantic, a WP:RS, is an online magazine article that contains both commentary and factual reporting... What's your reason for calling it reliable in this specific context? The Atlantic is largely an opinion magazine occupying the center of the U.S. political spectrum, not a straight news magazine like Time or Newsweek. The article in question mentions Sarsour in an individual capacity precisely once, in the context of a Twitter exchange that was four steps removed from Farrakhan himself.

...each of the sources on this matter explicitly and specifically mentions Sarsour... So what? Sarsour is mentioned in passing in many places; that doesn't make the coverage relevant to an encyclopedic biography. We rely on true secondary 'sources offering analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis for the bulk of an article's text. I'm not seeing that here.

Shook's comments in A make direct reference to Sarsour. What the article actually says is that "Shook specifically called out Linda Sarsour, Tamika Mallory, Bob Bland and Carmen Perez of Women's March, Inc." Should the same info be added to all four of their biographies? If not, what makes it particularly relevant to this one?

...B describes the fallout from this controversy in which Sarsour was a central figure, as explained in the WaPo. Where does it explain that Sarsour was a "central figure"? And where does it say this "fallout" (disavowal by regional Women's March chapters etc.) is more relevant to Sarsour than the group as a whole?

...C is a quote from a statement released by Sarsour on behalf of the Women's March. Why was this one quotation chosen over the other ones quoted in the source? Sarsour has made many public statements on a variety of issues. Why is this one especially relevant to her personal biography? Just being in the news is not sufficient. According to NPOV policy, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC) There's no reason to believe the Atlantic, a 144-year-old magazine covering American political affairs and one that is regularly cited BLPs, isn't a WP:RS. And by the way, the Atlantic isn't even being used to support content that's currently in the article—it does, however, indicate that the Farrakhan controversy began earlier this year. Sarsour isn't mentioned "in passing"—even a cursory review of the sources reveals this isn't the case. Your definition of "encyclopedic," which is actually named as one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, is less important than adhering to WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. Each of the sources that have been provided are indeed WP:SECONDARY. Sarsour's statement would be a primary source; an interview with Sarsour or Shook would be a primary source; the article that covers a recent series of events, includes quotes from involved parties, and places them into context, like those we have from CNN, the WaPo, and Haaretz, is a secondary source. The quote from Sarsour, pulled from the JTA but also quoted by Haaretz, is appropriate per WP:BLP and per WP:PUBLICFIGURE because it's a direct response to Shook and the controversy. Finally, kindly refrain from WP:TAGBOMBING the section and moving it to the bottom of the page. This is WP:DISRUPTIVE for the page and not the way to resolve disagreements. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to believe the Atlantic, a 144-year-old magazine covering American political affairs and one that is regularly cited BLPs, isn't a WP:RS. The Daily Mail is 122 years old. So what? Age of a publication doesn't guarantee that it's reliable. Reliability depends on context, and no source is reliable for everything. What's appropriate for any other article may not be appropriate here.

...it does, however, indicate that the Farrakhan controversy began earlier this year. A controversy that involved Sarsour very little if at all according to the source. So what's the point of bringing it up?

Sarsour isn't mentioned "in passing"... Then it should be easy to point to places where her role is discussed in depth.

Your definition of "encyclopedic," which is actually named as one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions... This isn't a deletion discussion. And I've already mentioned several policies and guidelines that support removal of this material.

Each of the sources that have been provided are indeed WP:SECONDARY. I've already provided the relevant defintion of a secondary source, which refutes this statement. At least, the required analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis has not yet been demonstrated.

...the article that covers a recent series of events, includes quotes from involved parties, and places them into context... Into what context is the question. It still hasn't been shown how any of these events or involved parties are specifically relevant to Sarsour's bio.

The quote from Sarsour [is] a direct response to Shook and the controversy. That's not what the source says at all. Shook isn't mentioned until the sixth paragraph; the only statement of Sarsour's directly connected to Shook is a separate post Sarsour made on Facebook. Other statements by Sarsour were also responses to the controversy. So why was this particular one chosen?

Finally, kindly refrain from WP:TAGBOMBING the section and moving it to the bottom of the page. That's not what tag-bombing is. The tag is clearly explained and intended to direct users to this very talk page discussion as per WP:CLEANUPTAG. Also, if the sections are going to be arranged chronologically, then the most recent events go at the bottom of the page, being last in chronological order. If you believe my edits are disruptive, you can open a discussion in the proper forum for such complaints. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:17, 24 December 2018 (UTC) At what point did I say WP:RECENTISM is never an issue? Your point about my edits on Matthew Whitaker is essentially an ad hominem raising an unrelated matter that is in no way analogous; there, the majority of coverage had taken place over the past few weeks and the sections I targeted were bloated with excessive and poorly placed quotes. Here, we have a brief, six-sentence section describing a controversy that has received significant secondary coverage since March this year.
 * your earlier statement that WP:RECENTISM typically describes an article-wide problem, not a section-specific one is contradicted by the wording of the ten-year test. You yourself have invoked recentism at by way of explaining your  from that article. So your objection here doesn't hold water. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:23, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

In addition, I'm not going to continue responding to these repetitive, long-form "rebuttals." You've expressed your position, I've expressed mine: that WP:DUE supports inclusion with the volume and quality of sources we already have, that WP:RECENTISM is not a major concern, and that relevance (2019 Women's March is a WP:RELART) is not in question. Hammering away isn't going to persuade me or anybody else who doesn't already agree with you. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, you've done quite a bit of policy hand-waving, but several policy-based objections remain unanswered, including how the material is proportional to the whole body of RS coverage of Sarsour, and where sources offer any in-depth analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of these events as recommended by policy. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No one's obligated to WP:SATISFY you, nor is it my issue if you can't or won't acknowledge the distinction between a primary and a secondary source. It's unfortunate that you've yet again decided to wholesale revert my recent edits to the page with little to no explanation. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have already explained the difference between primary and secondary sources: secondary sources are those that evaluate and synthesize primary sources. That's what the policy says. Please note also that The Atlantic's website, where Pagano's essay appears, is a different publication than the magazine itself, with a different editor. They do publish articles from the magazine online, but this isn't one. We can't infer that the website and magazine have the same editorial standards or reputation for reliability. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A+B+C I'm in accordance with ModerateMike729. Also think there is whitewashing in this article that needs attention. Barca (talk) 09:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * A–C but condensed. The material's well enough sourced. I think a detailed version of this stuff belongs in the article on the march.  A compressed version is pertinent in  article because Sarsour is among the march leadership criticized and whose resignations have been demanded, with sufficient frequency and stridency to have coverage of this in multiple RS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * A+B+ an expansion of this section. The pace at which the nationwide 2019 Women's Marches  are being cancelled, and the ongoing criticism of March organizer's antisemitic statements and positions needs a larger section as support implodes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * A+B+C As per WP:DUE this comments very widely reported by WP:RS --Shrike (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * A+B+ relevant, well sourced, not UNDUE, indeed exclusion presents a POV issue. Coretheapple (talk) 04:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

ADL criticism in lead section
Saying that Sarsour's remarks "have been criticized by the Anti-Defamation League and others" as added here is out of proportion in the lead section for several reasons: The source specifically linking the ADL with Sarsour herself is their own statement which is a primary source for any criticism – independent sources here describe Sarsour as part of a larger group or simply quote Greenblatt's (who is not synonymous with the ADL) one-off "Oscar Meyer" tweet. The text introduces seemingly important information that is not elaborated on in the body text as required per MOS:LEAD. I suggest finding better sources for this text before it is added anywhere in the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC) (edited 04:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC))


 * All I could find on the ADL website was: "We profoundly reject Linda Sarsour’s positions that delegitimize Israel. We have vigorously opposed efforts like the Boycott Divestment and Sanction (BDS) movement, which she supports and we oppose her stance that one cannot be simultaneously a feminist and pro-Israel." Saying she "has been critized" is too vague to leave in. TFD (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Imo -- in this case a primary source is acceptable, given that no one is going to dispute the notability of hte ADL (let alone the reliability of the ADL about … the ADL). Whether it should be in the lede that's another question.--Calthinus (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


 * False stmt - the diff above is clearly sourced to 2 NEWSORGs, as well as the ADL. It is quite easy to find additional NEWSORG coverage of the ADL's stmts ob Sarsour. Given Sarsour's involvement and stmts on Jewish issuses this is clealry DUE.Icewhiz (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That is not what WP:DUE means. DUE means "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources", not "Hey, she's involved with Jewish stuff and so is the ADL, so this is clearly important". That's an association fallacy. What the first independent source says is "According to the Anti-Defamation League, prominent Women’s March figures Tamika Mallory, Carmen Perez and Linda Sarsour have failed to speak out against the Nation of Islam leader ... Linda Sarsour, another March organizer, spoke and participated at a Nation of Islam event in 2015. Her most notable response to his incendiary remarks this year was a glowing post on Perez’s Facebook page to praise Farrakhan’s youthful demeanor.” Whether this is "criticism" or not is an original interpretation; the source doesn't call it criticism, so it doesn't support the text. The second independent source says "Jonathan Greenblatt, the CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, tweeted that 'Having Linda Sarsour & head of JVP leading a panel on antisemitism is like Oscar Meyer leading a panel on vegetarianism'". A one-off tweet by Jonathan Greenblatt is not the same as criticism by the ADL itself. This source does not support the text either. The third source here is the ADL's own statement which, as I have said, is a primary source for any criticism and therefore inappropriate for a BLP – criticism and praise of living persons require reliable, secondary sources. This text is inadequately sourced, especially for the lead section. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "failed to speak out" is criticism - this is not OR. The widely reported criticism by Greenblatt, the ADL chief, is criticism. The ADL own release is criticism - and the ADL itself is generally, as is the SPLC, a secondary source for its area of expertise.Icewhiz (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Then provide reliable, secondary sources that describe it as criticism. Otherwise calling this "criticism" requires that we interpret the source for ourselves, which is a form of original research. Any text that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves is original research. And we are not talking about the ADL's area of expertise; we are taking about a specific instance of criticism by the ADL. The statement where they do the criticizing is, by definition, a primary source for that criticism. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Any source in primary for attribution to itself, in a sense, however this does not make all attributed source use primary. Summarizing "failed to speak out" is mlt OR, however we could be more specific and mention Farrakhan explicitely - would that be better?Icewhiz (talk) 05:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sources should directly and explicitly support the text; otherwise it's original research according to policy. The ADL is a primary source here. You are defining the phrase "failed to speak out" as "criticism"; that's not a summary. Find a dictionary if you don't believe me. Significantly, none of the later sources on the Farrakhan controversy, such as The Forward, The Washington Post, JTA, or The Daily Beast, mention the ADL's remarks at all. Without multiple (as required by policy) reliable, secondary sources for a specific instance of criticism, it's way out of proportion for an encyclopedic bio, let alone the lead section. If such independent, published sources haven't taken note of the ADL's critique in re Farrakhan, then it's not Wikipedia's role to do so. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What should be important if we mention the ADL is to explain what their issue is. Saying she has been criticized by them without explaining why is unhelpful. TFD (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but not all criticism is relevant. My main concern is that we keep crticism within the bounds of due weight. Wikipedia isn't just a collection of sound bites. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's why I said if we mention it at all. We already mention that she supports BDS, why do we also have to point out that the ADL disapproves of her doing so? TFD (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the lede does not accurately reflect the criticism she has faced, which goes far beyond the ADL and Israel. Rather, it involves her associations with the anti-semitic Louis Farrakhan and history of statements perceived as anti-semitic by Jewish groups. ModerateMike729 (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Struck comment from confirmed sockpuppet /. See . —  Newslinger  talk   13:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A single, or even several, cherry-picked articles in marginal sources (Since when is Tablet authoritative for BLPs?) don't indicate that such criticism is proportional to the whole body of reliable-source coverage of Sarsour. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Heavy reliance on anonymous sources puts this right out of consideration as reliable for anything relating to such a sensitive BLP. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Your second reference says, "The prominent feminist activist and controversial anti-Zionist speaks out against anti-Semitism and the importance of 'organizing at the intersections of oppression'". Not every result for Sarsour+anti-Semitism accuses her of anti-Semitism. TFD (talk) 03:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I continue to be amazed at the double standards that are applied with WP:DUE. The ADL's commentary is just as noteworthy and reported on by WP:RS than the other organizations mentioned in the lead. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Then it should be easy to demonstrate with reference to the complete body of RS coverage of Sarsour (bearing in mind special considerations for living persons along with what Wikpedia is not), rather than cherry-picking sources or making vague accusations. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * When an event or controversy has been covered in multiple highly reliable sources (WP:RS), that's generally sufficient for inclusion. For example, say we had an article about a famous musician, and 995/1000 of the past stories about them had been about their music, but the latest 5 covered a major scandal involving that musician and included the NYT, WSJ, and others. No one would say, "Well, it's less than 1% of the total body of coverage, so leave it out." In this case, criticism against the subject is well-documented in such sources, including the bit about the ADL, and per WP:MOSLEAD we must not omit notable controversies. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If less than 1% of the sources covering a person mention some controversy or other, then by definition it's not a "major" controversy. That's just not how the modern media landscape works; every major scandal gets recycled by innumerable publications and websites looking for more clicks. In the case of Sarsour, major national newspapers have covered her career, including describing her various detractors. If none of them mention criticism by the ADL, then such criticism is out of proportion to the body of RS coverage. According to policy, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. If the ADL criticism were "notable", then it should go in the article body first, then in the lead, per MoS: Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. However, it's not actually noteworthy, for the reasons I've descrbed. Each of the three sources mentioning the ADL deal with a separate incident, so based on what's here, there are not in fact multiple reliable published sources covering any of the controversies, as required by policy. The first two sources are routine news reporting offering no interpretation, evaluation, analysis, or synthesis of the "criticism", and the third is a primary source for such "criticism". So according to several policies (WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PROPORTION, WP:SECONDARY, and WP:PUBLICFIGURE), there is good reason to leave this out. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No. You are very transparently applying a double standard to "positive" and "negative" content. Why have you not raised the same points about "progressive praise?" Why do we need to document every aspect of her "activism" in the article? Why does every criticism need to be balanced with some sort of defense, even if relatively obscure (JVP)? If you were to apply these standards consistently and without regard to what's controversial and what's not, I think your argument would carry a lot more weight.
 * And as other editors have pointed out, the ADL criticism is covered in secondary, reliable sources, and it is relevant and in fact not an isolated incident—the subject's career appears to have been in large part defined by her commentary on the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the ADL is one of the most prominent organizations that has criticized her—in fact, the ADL's Jonathan Greenblatt's criticism is mentioned (with sources) later in the article (and he is clearly speaking on behalf of the organization, which is why he doesn't need to be identified in the lead). And finally, and I don't intend to get into another long back-and-forth about this, you are just mistaken in characterizing pieces like the one from Haaretz covering her remarks as primary or "routine news." WP:NOTNEWS refers to original and routine reporting, and dismissing any coverage on controversies as "routine" and from "detractors" just indicates how you are misevaluating the sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of the above claims are off-topic or simply original research, but taking them point-by-point: • You are very transparently applying a double standard... Unfalsifiable statements are excellent for poisoning the well.

• Why have you not raised the same points about "progressive praise?" – because that statement is directly attributable to a published, reliable source.

• Why do we need to document every aspect of her "activism" in the article? Why does every criticism need to be balanced with some sort of defense, even if relatively obscure (JVP)? – I have never argued for either of these things.

• ADL criticism is covered in secondary, reliable sources – The sources above offer no interpretation, evaluation, analysis, or synthesis of any criticism by the ADL.

• ...and it is relevant – that is your opinion. Others may disagree.

• ...and in fact not an isolated incident – that's irrelevant; whether something has happened once or a hundred times, we go by the weight given by published, reliable sources.

• ...the subject's career appears to have been in large part defined by her commentary on the Arab-Israeli conflict – please provide a published, reliable source that says so.

• ...the ADL is one of the most prominent organizations that has criticized her – then why is their criticism missing from most secondary-source coverage?

• ...[Greenblatt] is clearly speaking on behalf of the organization – please provide a published, reliable source that says so.

• WP:NOTNEWS refers to original and routine reporting – NOTNEWS was only one of the policies I cited, and those examples are not meant to be exhaustive according to policy. However, none of the above sources appear to have sought Sarsour's comments, which is a clear sign of routine or breaking-news coverage. Most reliable news sources seek a response before publishing. Furthermore, the quote from Greenblatt appears halfway through a piece about an event (New School panel on anti-Semitism) that hasn't been mentioned in Sarsour's bio either. If the event isn't significant enough to mention, then why is Greenblatt's response significant?

• ...dismissing any coverage on controversies as "routine" and from "detractors" – I have suggested several reliable sources for various controversies, and I didn't say that any of the three sources here were from her detractors. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm just going to respond to a few of these points: Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Assessing the subject's career based on sources in determining what belongs in the article is not WP:OR—not only are you misunderstanding that policy, but you've made similar points in your own arguments about relevance.
 * You are just incorrect about the sources—again—a primary source would be citing the actual Facebook post itself. The news article that reports, comments on, and places in context that post is a secondary source.
 * Your arguments against inclusion of WP:VERIFIABLE but "controversial" content like her involvement in the women's march and calls for her to step down, the "dual allegiance" remarks, and others almost boil down to characterizing content that has been published in WP:RS as trivial—yet you consistently overstep your role as an editor and just become a WP:CENSOR because the policy states determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. Again, you should be placing the same standard on all material, not just ones that reflect on the source in a way you might personally find undesirable.

Request for comment: ADL criticism
Should we state in the lead section that Sarsour's "remarks on the Arab-Israeli conflict and condemnations of Israel have been criticized by the Anti-Defamation League", as in this edit? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC) (edited 22:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC))
 * Text has beeb corrected to read while her remarks on the Arab-Israeli conflict and Jews have been criticized by the Anti-Defamation League and others..Icewhiz (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * No: This is unduly vague and over-emphasizes any criticism by the ADL. The text in question here is an improper synthesis of three different sources: The Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, and the ADL's own website. The first two don't directly state that the ADL "criticized" Sarsour; they are routine news reporting offering no interpretation, evaluation, analysis, or synthesis of the "criticism" that would help us establish due weight. The third is a primary source for such "criticism". The second source in particular quotes a tweet from Jonathan Greenblatt halfway through a piece about a New School panel on anti-Semitism that appears nowhere in Sarsour's bio. If the event isn't significant enough to mention, then why is Greenblatt's response significant? Greenblatt is not synonymous with the ADL. We do state, based on reliable, independent sources, that Greenblatt and other establishment Jewish figures have criticized her for her remarks on Israel and support of Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions. However, none of the later sources offering real analysis of the controversies involving Sarsour and the Women's March, such as The Washington Post, The Daily Beast, or even Tablet (the subject of a separate discussion on this page), mention the ADL's remarks at all. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I will also note that it's up to those wishing to include this material to obtain definite consensus before it belongs in the article according to Wikipedia:Verifiability: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. The ArbCom ruling on biographies of living persons similarly states: In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned ... such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. The ADL is a leading antisemitism and hate group watchdog. It has commented on Sarsour over a number of years, and of course their coverage of Sarsour, which has been covered by NEWSORGs as well, is DUE for the lede. It is a severe NPOV problem to omit such designations from figures known to a large extent due to speech seen as antisemitic.Icewhiz (talk) 08:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * No: This is at times inaccurate (failing to criticise Farrakahn's remarks has little to do with Sarsour criticising Israel), at times sourced remarks are vague, and any criticism by the ADL of her "Israel vews", would need to be explicit and be made clearly BY THEM to support the proposed addition. Additionally, nothing should be in the lead which is not more fully expounded in the body. Pincrete (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * No. Sarsour's criticism of Israel is distinct from any connections to anti-Semites. Even the IfNotNow has criticized her for that reason (Haaretz). I don't like the argument that this is not relevant to Sarsour or that this is a coatrack or a content fork, because it is not. Neutral on the version with "Jews" instead of "the Arab-Israeli conflict". w umbolo   ^^^  14:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree the ADL criticism is not all Israel related - e.g. Farrakhan or Sarsour's stmt that Zionists can be feminist. Should we frame the ADL's criticism in a broader manner?Icewhiz (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Wumbolo While I agree that is something that should be covered as well, I think whether or not the lead should include allegations of antisemitism may be a separate issue for a different RfC. Do you not believe that criticism of her positions on Israel, particularly by the ADL, should be included? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. The ADL is the most prominent organization to criticize her and, in addition to the sources already cited, this has also been documented by The Forward and and Haaretz  and The Boston Herald Her political stances on Israel, and the controversy they have drawn, is clearly an essential element to the subject's biography and notability—this is exactly what is described in the sources, and it is not WP:SYNTH to note this in the article. Finally, those who are arguing that the lead currently contains weasel words should revisit the relevant policy page, which states phrases like "some say" are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if they accurately represent the opinions of the source. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The Boston Herald article is not relevant here. w umbolo   ^^^  17:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's fair, but I don't see an issue with the other two sources provided. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Those sources do not say that the Anti-Defamation League itself criticised Sarsour for anything. The first, JTA, says, . The ADL, I hardly need say, is more than its national directors. The second, Haaretz, says (emphasis added). Once again, Jonathan Greenblatt is not synonymous with the ADL. Not every Google search result for  is an official statement by the group. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes and no - I'm OK with noting that the ADL and pro-Israel groups have criticized her. However, the version of "and Jews" is entirely unsupported — there is nothing in the sources which shows Sarsour making comments about "Jews" as a whole. We need to be precise if we're going to do this — we have sources that say specifically what the ADL has criticized her for: not criticizing Farrakhan, perceived "delegitimization of Israel" by supporting BDS, and her remarks about feminism and support of Israel. Those are the three specific criticisms citable to an ADL source. But we can't put all of the details in the lead as that would clearly be undue weight, so consolidating to "remarks on the Arab-Israeli conflict and support for BDS" seems an acceptable solution. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Her comments on zionists not being able to be feminists, zionists often being code for Jews, are not a comment on the conflict nor BDS - but rather a rejection of a very large proportion of the Jewish American community. The ADL and others have harshly condemned this comment.Icewhiz (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a very interesting original synthesis you've got there, but unfortunately you don't have any sources to support it. The ADL's criticisms are cited in the article, and neither of them state that Sarsour said anything about "Jews." If you're going to include the ADL in the lede, you're going to have be very precise about what you say, because otherwise you're putting words in the ADL's mouth. You have no evidence to suggest that Sarsour meant to attack all Jews, and for you to create such an unsupported inference clearly violates foundational policy. In addition, we have several reliable sources which clearly discuss the fact that Sarsour's remarks on feminism were misinterpreted and distorted, and that she did not say feminism and Zionism are incompatible. She said you can't be an uncritical supporter of Israel and be a feminist. One might still disagree with that position, but it's not the same and we're not here to engage in sensationalistic misinterpretations. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Some have attempted to spin the stmt (which was rather clear by iyself). However per the ADL: By Rejecting Jews, Intersectionality Betrays Itself, Jan 2018 - But Sarsour, the administrators of the Palestinian American Women’s Association, the organizers of the Dyke March and Al-Khatahtbeh have it wrong. Of course Zionism and feminism are compatible. And excluding Jewish women from these movements, or placing a high price on including women like Gadot and Johansson, smacks of the very things we at the Anti-Defamation League fight. - so interesting OR above regarding the ADL - however the ADL clearly refers to this as as a comment on Jewish women (not BDS or Israel). Sarsour's critics should be fairly represented - they are criticizing her for much more than "just criticism of Israel".Icewhiz (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You still have cited nothing which factually states that Sarsour made comments about Jews, which is the undeniable meaning of the wording you proposed. The ADL's *opinion* might be that the effect of Sarsour's statement was to "exclude Jewish women," but that's still not the same as stating, as an undisputed fact in the lede, that Sarsour ever made remarks on... Jews. She didn't, and we're not going to twist her words to say that she did. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The ADL has - and this is an expert opinion, however this is also fixable by castling remarks and criticism, and relating to the criticism and not the remarks. For good measure - here is the ADL saying the same thing differently - "Linda Sarsour, a leader of the women’s rights movement, has lambasted Zionism as incompatible with feminism and advocates for the exclusion of pro-Israel Jews from activist groups.". Here's a NEWSORG saying this in their own voice - The Women’s March has repeatedly tried to redefine who can be a feminist, and coming up with the same answer—not Jews, or only Jews who play by the rules set without any concern or input from Jewish women. You can be a feminist, but not if you’re a Zionist—excluding approximately 80 percent of Jews off the bat. You can be a Jewish feminist only if you take a view of Jewish history that was not written by Jews and is ahistorical to Jewish life. You can fight for racial justice, but not if you support Jewish civil rights groups like the Anti-Defamation League.Even the Women’s March Apology Erases Jewish Women, Tablet, or "Taken to its logical conclusion, Sarsour’s mode of thinking (whereby Zionism &equiv; Islamophobia, and anti-Zionism &equiv;feminism) renders anti-Semitism a political virtue: to be a good progressive, by her lights, one must stand four-square against Jewish self-assertion and national aspirations. Indeed, Sarsour and her ilk are engaged in nothing less than a concerted effort to redefine anti-Semitism. Her rise, and the celebration of her by progressives as one of their own, demonstrates how clearly and phenomenally Jews and Jewish concerns are being written out of the progressive movement. Icewhiz (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You have some very interesting opinions, but none of those are facts. The fact remains that Sarsour has never made remarks about "Jews." She has certainly made remarks about those who, in her opinion, uncritically support Israel, but that is not the same thing. You're attempting to equate Sarsour's opposition to a wide array of Israeli policies with anti-Semitism, and that simply won't fly here. Your Tablet link is to an opinion column written by a political organizer and advocacy professional based in Washington, D.C. That's not a news story and it can't be cited for facts. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * To be clear - I proffered no opinion of mine in the above - but merely quoted published material by others, including Jonathan Greenblatt who would be generally seen as an expert on the topic. Icewhiz (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Those are opinion pieces. We cannot drop what they say about her in the lead without strong WP:SECONDARY coverage to show that their opinions are relevant. (I know you are aware of this, since you tried to cite the ADL, which you presumably thought was a better source.  But it doesn't say what you want it to say; and the op-eds aren't appropriate for the lead without secondary coverage.)  --Aquillion (talk) 04:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No per weight. It is out of proportion to its significance. TFD (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would also ask that we keep the discussion to a separate section, it makes things easier. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No There is no indication that the ADL has criticized Sarsour, nor that its leader's "disappointment" in her is sufficiently relevant or important to be mentioned in the lead section. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No. Even the original sentence (prior to the edit that referenced the ADL) is WP:UNDUE and should be removed; a handful of op-eds and press releases (mostly from WP:BIASED sources) is not sufficient to demonstrate the weight necessary to put any of this in the lead. We can absolutely use WP:BIASED sources, but we have to take their bias into account when assessing WP:DUE; if this is genuinely one of the primary things she's notable for, it should be easy to find coverage beyond just Israel-based news sources or ones devoted to advocacy on that and related topics.  The lack of any uninvolved coverage there (especially the lack of any uninvolved WP:SECONDARY sources even noting the existence of such criticism) implies that this is not yet noteworthy enough for the lead. EDIT:  Also, the ADL statement itself is pulled out of context.  The fact that it immediately follows up with At the same time, we strongly condemn the anti-Muslim bigotry and other invective spouted by speakers at today’s demonstration against Sarsour in Manhattan. There is no excuse for bigotry is extremely relevant context, and I feel it can't be cited for one part without the other.  (ie. the ADL disagrees with her position, but also recognizes that much of the criticism against her has crossed the line.) --Aquillion (talk) 04:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It also deals with a very specific, brief controversy detailed under, which is why I agree that the press release itself, aside from being a primary source for any "criticism", gives insufficient weight to any "criticism" for putting in the lead section. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:38, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No. The ADL is a trashy organization known for intimidating pro-Palestinian activists and other persons critical of the apartheid regime inside Palestine. Here is a bit of history: Anti-Defamation League. Worth nothing that in 2007, Linda Sarsour described the ADL as being "the most racist organization in the United States against Arabs and Muslims". Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think your comment kind of proves why it should be mentioned. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments like these should be disregarded entirely. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes include obviously notable given the ADL's status as an influential watchdog org, the leading one when it comes to anti-semitism and related issues. This should not be related to whether you agree with the ADL's criticism should not be a reason for voting -- the matter at hand, which I believe is currently unrebutted, is the wide sway the ADL has and the role this plays in the controversies surroundering her role (which is how most people know her name, let's face it). !Vote rationales like Al-Andalusi's above are disgusting and defamatory, but I am glad he posted it, as it exposes IDLI behind at least one "No" !vote here...--Calthinus (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Personal feelings aside, does everything ever said or printed by an "influential watchdog" belong in an encylopedia? That's a misreading of due and undue weight. The ADL has probably published thousands of opinions on various topics; Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for promoting their take on the issues. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Personal feelings aside, not a word above rebuts the point about the sway the ADL has in a dispute which happens to be how most people even know who she is (hence, notability). If you would like to educate other editors on your vast policy expertise, perhaps a better example for WP:SOAPBOX or perhaps its alternative link name WP:NOTPROMO would be the use of a single piece to triumphantly declare Sarsour the "face of the resistance", in the middle of the lede. But I suppose when you're the expert, consistency doesn't apply, perhaps you can WP:LAWYER on why consistency isn't necessary for your arguments :). --Calthinus (talk) 01:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The suggestion that Sarsour's notability is due to a couple of statements by the ADL is not borne out by the sources. She's been profiled by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Associated Press, all of which receive vastly more attention than the ADL. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I wonder where you get all this straw, to construct so many strawmen. Nobody said her notability was "due to the ADL". What I said was that the ADL has sway in a controversy that is widely covered and is indeed how most people know of her, propagated by the news outlets you mentioned as well as, yes, right wing ones.--Calthinus (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue has never been the ADL's "sway" over anything, which appears to be your own original research. Any "sway" they do have is unrelated to this article and is just an "I like it" type of argument. The issue is whether independent, published sources exist showing the ADL's relevance to this particular subject, for purposes of establishing due weight —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, per the SYNTH concerns raised by Sangdeboeuf and NorthBySouthBaranof, as well as the UNDUE concerns raised by Aquillion. signed,Rosguill talk 18:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes - ADL seems a legitimate source for this, and there are many other sources that also confirm Sarsour's stance on this matter. Beyond how we personally feel about her particular cause, the article should not censor something that is widely covered in the media. Barca (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Where is the ADL's criticism "widely covered in the media"? If it's so widely covered, it should be easy to find more than two independent sources reporting on it (one of which isn't even about the ADL itself). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes - Well sourced, relevant, and the notion that the ADL's criticism of her is different than criticism from its spokesman/leader seems irrelevant. ModerateMike729 (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Most of the "Yes" arguments I'm seeing here seem to be based on a combination of association fallacy and argument from authority, along the lines of: • A. Some people have accused Sarsour of anti-Semitism;

• B. The ADL is noted for combating anti-Semitism; therefore

• C. The ADL's statements regarding Sarsour are valid and important. That's just bad logic, and it's not at all what's meant by "due weight". To demonstrate WP:DUE, users who favor inclusion need to show that featuring the ADL's viewpoint in the lead section is proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. Since Sarsour is the subject, that means demonstrating independent, reliable coverage of Sarsour herself where the ADL's view is prominent. That's certainly not accomplished with a single press release and a couple of news reports (one of which doesn't cite any official ADL communication and the other being focused on the four co-chairs collectively rather than Sarsour specifically). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, per Sangedeboeuf, Aquillion, etc. Parabolist (talk) 07:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No per Sangdeboeuf, especially "that means demonstrating independent, reliable coverage of Sarsour herself where the ADL's view is prominent. That's certainly not accomplished with a single press release and a couple of news reports" rational. That same problem is seen throughout the article IMO.  Gandydancer (talk) 15:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes and no; I agree with NorthBySouthBaranof.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, seems to miss the forest for the trees. The lead should summarize her encyclopedic biography (itself aiming to be a succinct document). I don't see that, to date, the ADL specifically is playing such a large role in her life as a whole that it makes sense to mention in a six-sentence summary of her biography. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I don't see any problem with this edit whatsoever. Coretheapple (talk) 04:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

This issue is not resolved yet. Hence, I'm restoring the undue tag in the lead section here. If the criticism of her views is to remain in the lead, then it should be balanced by a note stating its positive reception among pro-Palestinian activists. Al-Andalusi (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * For the record, I don't think there's any dispute about mentioning criticism from Jewish leaders generally in the lead section. The issue was singling out the ADL in particular. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That is because the earlier version had ADL mentioned by name in the lead, which has since been replaced by the more general "Jewish leaders and organizations". But I think many of the arguments made against the inclusion of ADL still stand against the new wording as well. Mainly, that we have criticism by pro-Israel organizations stated in undue terms in the lead. Moreover, there is no balancing of such criticisms with positive reception among pro-Palestinian activists. Also notice how those views (of Sarsour) are not even stated. We are only told that her views are bad. Her views on African Americans, Trump, immigration and police are stated, but not her views on Palestine. This is not normal. Al-Andalusi (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * At this point I'm not too worried about these things (You're welcome to cite sources that describe the responses of pro-Palestinian activists, though). I think a bigger NPOV problem with the lead section is the vague statement about Sarsour's "controversial" involvement in the 2019 Women's March; see below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Stockman ref & 2019 Women's March
This is more WP:COATRACKING – the source doesn't mention Sarsour in connection with these events. Stockman leads off with a description of Vanessa Wruble's allegations about Mallory and Perez. They mention Mallory's association with Farrakhan. They mention the recent Tablet exposé and Teresa Shook's call for the leaders to step down (naming Mallory and Perez, but not Sarsour). They discuss the questions of Jewish women's role stemming from the the initial planning meeting, before Sarsour joined the organization. And so on.

Sarsour is specifically mentioned here only by way of giving background information – Mallory and Perez brought her on board as a friend, and later the three decided they didn't want to work with Wruble, which is only very obliquely linked to the anti-Semitism controversy, in the very last sentence of the article. The focus throughout is on Mallory and Perez.

Using this source to imply, in Sarsour's bio, that the controversy "roiling the movement" is somehow connected to her personally is the epitome of guilt by association, which we are specifically enjoined to be wary of according to policy. I strongly suggest removing the above statement from the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC) The line and the article is about the Women's March, of which Sarsour is one of the four co-chairs who have been criticized as part of the Farrakhan/antisemitism controversy. From the article:
 * Mallory's bio mentions Mallory's connections to Farrakhan, and Sarsour's bio mentions Sarsour's connections to Mallory and Perez. While this article mentions Sarsour's connections to Farrakhan (or at least used to), they are not related to the Women's March. Finally, since these sources about alleged anti-Semitism inside the Women's March don't focus on Sarsour, I slightly lean toward not mentioning the anti-Semitism as per guilt of association, at least until we have better sources (perhaps in a week). w umbolo   ^^^  19:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * you claim that this issue "has been discussed ad nauseam". It hasn't. The discussion is here; please contribute if you have something to say. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Even though the march was a success, Ms. Wruble said that she felt angry and that the event’s official leaders were more focused on celebrity than building the movement. She also felt they were unwilling to confront their own bias against Jews.

2019 Women's March is a WP:RELART, so to call this content coatracking is mistaken. Wumbolo, if you're looking for more sources, I would also point you to yesterday's piece in Haaretz. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * None of these articles focus on Sarsour's involvement in the incidents. If I had to pick between guilt by association and the status quo which doesn't explain that the Women's March is controversial, I'd pick the latter. I wouldn't oppose a reasonable summary of the controversies surrounding the other March organizers, if it didn't imply Sarsour's consent in the actions. w umbolo   ^^^  20:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Then make a case for including these facts in the article. Wruble's personal dissatisfaction with the organization has nothing to do with the public controversy mentioned above, according to any source I've seen. Just because they're described in the same piece doesn't mean we should be conflating them in a biography of Sarsour. The allegations of (someone, we don't know exactly who) being "focused on celebrity" etc. are essentially gossip that is irrelevant to Sarsour's bio. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The whole notion that Sarsour is just an innocent bystander to this controversy is provably false, directly contradicted by the sources, and has been discussed ad nauseam under the Shook comments RfC. We don't have to attribute Mallory's alleged antisemitic comments to Sarsour to acknowledge that when the NYT refers to the Women's March leadership, that directly implicates Sarsour. In fact, it was Sarsour who issued the initial apology/defense against the accusations on behalf of the group. Furthermore, we already have reliable sources naming Sarsour's comments on Israel and her own attendance at a Farrakhan event as fueling the controversy. To emphasize this, I'll provide two more pieces (which are in addition to the sources provided further up on this page, all of substantiate this): The fact that this prominent controversy is already covered in the article means it should be covered in the lead per MOS:LEAD. That's policy, not giving WP:UNDUE weight. And WP:BLPGOSSIP doesn't cover the opinion or account of an involved party, Wruble, whatever her opinions about the organizers are and whether you personally think they are legitimate, when it's covered in a source like The New York Times and also in Tablet. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * no one said anything about Sarsour being an innocent bystander or any of the other stuff. Regarding the statement from the Times, you are combining multiple sources, and multiple parts of sources, to imply that Stockman means Sarsour when she doesn't say Sarsour. That's improper synthesis. Your edit summary on 00:33, 17 January 2019 is false; the NYT doesn't explicitly tie Sarsour to the controversy as described in the text. If you want your new sources to be used in the article, then make a proposal or just add them. They are not related to the material in question, which is a direct quote from the Times. In particular, given that Wruble left the Women's March shortly after its founding, any problems she had then or now are unrelated to anything currently "roiling the movement", unless sources explicitly link her comments to any later controversy. The "bias against Jews" bit refers to alleged remarks by Mallory and Perez, not Sarsour: —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * There's no WP:SYNTH occurring. The line from the Stockman piece describes the controversy over the Women's March's leadership, which includes Sarsour. Stockman noted this very clearly in the article: Wruble referred to Sarsour, Mallory, and Perez (the Women's March leadership) when she expressed concern over the anti-semitism. For some reason you seem to keep suggesting that somehow this entire issue isn't relevant to Sarsour, which I just find baffling and unpersuasive given what's been reported. The only one you could plausibly make that argument for is Bob Bland. Definitely not Sarsour, and an objective analysis of the sources makes that obvious. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The line from the Stockman piece describes the controversy over the Women's March's leadership, which includes Sarsour – no, it refers to "charges of anti-Semitism", none of which involve Sarsour according to this article. Wruble referred to Sarsour, Mallory, and Perez (the Women's March leadership) when she expressed concern over the anti-semitism – at no point does the article explicitly say this. That's simply false. Moreover, you're talking about a private text message between Wruble and another organizer from nearly two years ago. That is manifestly not the same as "charges of anti-Semitism [now] roiling the movement". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about what was reported in the article. The controversy over the 2019 Women's March that the NYT describes with that line plainly involves Sarsour. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What was "reported in the article" does not explicitly tie Sarsour to the later controversies, as I've already explained at length in this section. If I'm missing something, kindly point out where the article explicitly refers to Sarsour in connection with "charges of anti-Semitism [that] are now roiling the movement and overshadowing plans for more marches". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The NYT piece was primarily reporting on the controversy as reported by Tablet, which explicitly involved Sarsour. See below:

From the NYT piece

From the referenced Tablet article


 * Comment I don't think we need the Stockman quote. It is essentially analysis -- unless Stockman has some evidence of internal divisions within the movement arising, in which case those specifically should be mentioned if they are notable.--Calthinus (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's correct—it is secondary analysis, which constitutes the bread and butter of BLPs. As for the second part of your comment—have you read either article? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * yes, it is but sometimes sacrifices are necessary when highly predictable forces of nature exist on the article. Sometimes "show rather than tell" also works. And no, not yet -- I will. Read the news elsewhere. The text in the Tablet quote above is relevant, if they indeed did refuse any Jewish woman on the board and all the Jewish women elsewhere in the org up and left-- that is indeed notable and would be of use to readers to note. --Calthinus (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (and my apologies for not reading it -- truth is I am out of free articles from NYT on this device at the moment and will use another when the opportunity arises) --Calthinus (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for your reply. I would hope in the future that you'll read the referenced citations before removing sourced material. I appreciate you explaining your reasoning, but I don't understand your "force of nature" argument for why secondary analysis from The New York Times,widely recognized as a reliable source, shouldn't be included. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * neither of these sources link Sarsour to any "accusations of anti-Semitism". The Tablet piece explicitly states that . That would be the meeting where Mallory and Perez allegedly said that Jews were leaders of the slave trade (they both deny saying this). Morganfield's statement that does not equate to a personal accusation of anti-Semitism. Neither does the characterization of Sarsour's response as . We would need multiple reliable sources that explicitly mention Sarsour as a target of such accusations in order for Stockman's quote to be relevant. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear: the NYT piece and the Stockman line is clearly relevant to Sarsour, particularly given that we indeed have multiple reliable sources that have criticized or cited criticism of her, including the NYT piece itself. You seem completely comfortable with crediting the subject for the reported success of 2017 March, but when it comes to negative controversies that the organization is involved in, you suddenly take the position that Sarsour is completely detached from it (despite what sources have reported). Obviously we don't yet have consensus for this line yet, but in my opinion, this represents the application of an obvious double standard and is inconsistent with WP:NPOV. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Allegations of Anti-semitism
Evidence that the subject faces allegations of antisemitism. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Antisemitism allegations are defining aspects of a personality and should be part of lead, this edit has removed it, it has to be brought back. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So Courtney Love also calls Sarsour a "terrorist." Should we also call her a terrorist in the lede too?  All this is just Love's opinion. Carptrash (talk) 00:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If there are more sources and if editors believe it should be, then so be it. Wikipedia isn't about opinion, it is about consensus of reliable sources and editors. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And nowhere in the second reference is Sarsour called an anti-semite. If these "references" don't get better pretty soon you will loose all credibility with me. Carptrash (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Women’s March Roiled by Accusations of Anti-Semitism" the subject is the leader of the march. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And please be civil. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)